A Philosphical question.

[lilsamuraijoe]

A runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track. In its path are five people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it will kill one person. Should you flip the switch?

The real question is, is this the morally correct choice? [if you pulled the switch I mean]

OK here is another.

The runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track where it will kill five people. You are standing on a bridge above the track and, aware of the imminent disaster, you decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. Although you will die, the five people will be saved. Results are indicative and may not reflect public opinion Just before your leap, you realise that you are too light to stop the trolley. Next to you, a fat man is standing on the very edge of the bridge. He would certainly block the trolley, although he would undoubtedly die from the impact. A small nudge and he would fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know. Should you push him?

And of course the real question is, is this morally correct? [if you pushed the man]

Most people would say that they would pull the switch but not push the fat man, even thought technically, you still are saving 5 for the price of 1. When people are asked why they wouldn't push the man, they say, because "they don't know". This is actually a famous study I learned about in Advanced Psychology. Just thought it was kind of interesting.

[Left 4 Dead]

What if that one person is the cheerleader?

If we can't save her, how can we save the world?!

[Waterboy2go]

Ugh, I hate conundrums, I'm better at solving practical problems.

[Left 4 Dead]

I'd save the 5 people.

Fat people disgust me. I guess someone more tolerant would say that flipping a switch is different than pushing a person on a track but...

[DeMoNsXWiThInnX]

I would simply Walk away from the scene, and Pretend nothing happend. WHOS WITH ME!

[darkmessiah]

Conundrum 1: Yes, good of the many outweighs the good of the few.

Conundrum 2: No, because you'd sacrifice another for something that you could have attempted and failed, to save people you must:
1. Not have a choice if you have to sacrifice people for more.
2. Give your own life if you know that everyone will live.

Your Psychology class is completely right, it's because a person's conscience is affected by the state of your decisions (This is not technical, just from my observations.), so for the first one, someone'd rather kill that one guy than having yourself and five others die, because it's part of survival. BUT, to know that you can save five people, but have to maliciously push someone else's life to the death is too hard on someone's mind.

[lilsamuraijoe]

Here is another thingy in the same vein.

The Shallow Pond scenario. You see a small child drowning in a shallow pond. You could wade out and save the child's life, but doing so would ruin your $200 suit. Since you don't want to ruin your suit, you walk on, and the child dies.

Is this morally incorrect? Most people would say so.

The Envelope scenario. You get a letter from UNICEF in the mail, telling you that a donation of $200 will save a dozen innocent third-world children. Without even considering donating, you throw the envelope away and, as expected, a dozen children die a week later.

Now is this morally incorrect? Most people would say no or at least not as nearly as the shallow pond situation. What does this say about our moral intuition if such a thing exists in the first place?

[darkmessiah]

Morality is different between every person. Pessimism can easily affect, and especially some Antisocial disorder can easily break from what an ordinary man would think is morally correct or not.

Example: Who cares about that Hobo down the street in Seattle? You see him, pity, but those African kids you've never seen really get those donations going.

[Left 4 Dead]

so for the first one, someone'd rather kill that one guy than having yourself and five others die, because it's part of survival.

you, a bystander, flip a switch

[DeMoNsXWiThInnX]

Senario 1: I would Most Deffinelty Save the Child, If sure you wouldent want to Ruin your suit but a sit over a child. I pick Save his/her life!

Senario 2: Alot of people reading this would probably say "Id saend them the money", but if they actully recived the letter saying this, most likely People would thow it aside. I would, only becuase Of how many Scams and Problems there are in the world I wouldent be able to trust the letter.

[darkmessiah]

Quoting: lilsamuraijoe
you, a bystander, flip a switch
Didn't read it all the way, thanks L4D.

But, still, I think that it's all about the blood on your hands, and that's almost literal. Pushing a man off to save a group is more gruesome than flipping a switch, you know what I mean?

The feel of that man's back you are sending to death is so much worse than the feel of metal against the skin and having a person die by a not so direct approach.

[Left 4 Dead]

On the second set of scenarios:

1) I'd definitely save the kid, I don't know who wouldn't. If it were Niagra Falls filled with Sharks and Pirates, then maybe I'd walk away.

2) However, the second scenario is drastically different. The follow-up is a lose-lose scenario.

Say you donate once and save a THOUSAND children. There are MILLIONS dying each day.

Therefore you have two choices (with regards to this scenario) you either:

A) Keep paying, and waste away, literally, your LIFE.
B) Stop funding, and look like an asshole.

The problem, ultimately, with the scenario is that kids there are fucked from the get-go. No amount of effort made by one person can ever reverse that.
----------------------
Nearly the same with the homeless man. Homeless people, for the most part, are not children. That automatically means they don't get nearly the same amount of sympathy as a child would, AND

In my personal opinion, under only a few circumstances would a hobo be worth helping out. Cynical, I know. But if it came down to a child who's mother was raped and had no alternative but to give birth, dies or is killed, and leaves the child under poor conditions -OR- a someone, by his own choices or misfortunes, fucks himself over... I'd help the kid out. Even if he grows up. Many people in Africa are plunged into a poor existence. People who choose, through their own actions, in my opinion should be.... removed.

Likewise you can assume that I've never really understood the sympathy for drug-addicts etc. Unless someone just tripped into a pile of needles.

[darkmessiah]

So you don't care at all that some kids lived? Means you have higher standards than you need, which can destroy people's lives. Be happy with the things you did, don't get sad about the things you didn't. Unless it killed you.

And I agree, cynicism for America's poor is very evident, I hate homeless people, who could go find some kind of job somewhere instead of beg.

But still, you care about the African kid that's dead anyway than your local unworthy.

[lilsamuraijoe]

The whole purpose of the first study was to observe someones brain when they were asked the question. it was found that the frontal lobe deals with moral judgment and things like that. Its interesting, how much the brain affects the personality. The case of Phineas Gage, a man who had an Iron rod shot straight through his head nearly demolishing his frontal lobe and survived is a perfect example of the relation of the brain to the personality. After the accident, Phineas Gage was different. He lacked the ability to plan and other cognitive skills and he lacked the ability to suppress sudden impulses like cussing. The frontal lobe deals with inhibiting impulses and stuff like that.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Phineas_gage_-_1868_skull_diagram.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Phineas_gage_-_1868_skull_diagram.jpg)

[darkmessiah]

Psychology is one of the more fascinating aspects of life. And then sociology, which I bet can get way cool.

[Left 4 Dead]

No, I was detailing the two likely outcomes that follow-up the choice to donate.

I actually never made my decision regarding the second scenario.

I can't help that I feel sympathy for children who are forced into unimaginable conditions rather than a homeless man who first of all, can probably help out the community, and second of all, actually PUT HIMSELF IN THAT POSITION.

Back to the first set of scenarios, I'd press the button AND push the dude. If I had to do both.

[darkmessiah]

At least ask the guy.

We'll never know the true answer until it actually happens...

[lilsamuraijoe]

I have thought a lot about the second one and here is what I have to say: let a person's life be represented by a circle. This circle includes everyone from his family, friends, and co-workers, to the city, the state, and the nation he lives in and also the nations his nation depends on and vice versa. Why would anyone be morally obligated to save the lives of starving children in Africa when they have no affect on this circle of content?

There is no correct answer to this, but I think we should help others not because we have to or are morally obligated to, but because we can and we want to.

[Left 4 Dead]

Heh, I considered this, with the circles and everything.

But hobos are useless. Children in Africa don't even have a chance. Hobos had it and lost it. Mostly.

[Skeetles]

Its interesting, how much the brain affects the personality
no, it's obvious

[Left 4 Dead]

Report

Quoting: lilsamuraijoe
Its interesting, how much the brain affects the personality

no, it's obvious

Lol. He's got you there.

[Sifer2]

Too many unknowns to me. Does the trolley car have people on it? Where do the two sets of tracks lead? What if the car is full of people an switching it means it flies off a damn cliff? lol

And pushing the fat man is murder. Maybe he has wife an kids. You going to tell them you thought it was better to kill him to save 5 people so dumb they stand on traintracks?

[Gforcemember45]

A runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track. In its path are five people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it will kill one person. Should you flip the switch?

its not my place to decided who lives and who dies.

The runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track where it will kill five people. You are standing on a bridge above the track and, aware of the imminent disaster, you decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. Although you will die, the five people will be saved. Results are indicative and may not reflect public opinion Just before your leap, you realise that you are too light to stop the trolley. Next to you, a fat man is standing on the very edge of the bridge. He would certainly block the trolley, although he would undoubtedly die from the impact. A small nudge and he would fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know. Should you push him?

no, its the five peoples fault for being in front of a runaway trolly in the first place.

The Shallow Pond scenario. You see a small child drowning in a shallow pond. You could wade out and save the child's life, but doing so would ruin your $200 suit. Since you don't want to ruin your suit, you walk on, and the child dies.

yeah i would ruin 200 buck suit, i might get reward for a nicer one.

The Envelope scenario. You get a letter from UNICEF in the mail, telling you that a donation of $200 will save a dozen innocent third-world children. Without even considering donating, you throw the envelope away and, as expected, a dozen children die a week later.

These two differ by the sight factor. Since you can actually see the other kid drowning, it has an emotional effect on you. When looking at a envelope, its gives off nothing and in return you feel nothing.

[Tyr]

What you're asking in your first post is the basic principles of Utilitarianism. Should the minority suffer for the benefit of the majority? Many people think so but where does one stop? Five people suffering from organ failure in different vital organs? Surely the right thing to do is to murder a perfectly healthy person and harvest their organs.

There is also the slavery example. Say you have 100 people draw straws. Ten of these people will draw a short straw and become slaves for the other 90 making their lives better. By the principles of Utilitarianism this is just. However with the risk of being one of the unlucky 10 would you partake in drawing straws? (Don't consider your personal feelings towards slavery in this example, you just want your standard of living improved.)

Your second post was the interesting one. I suppose the key difference is that there is a degree of separation in the UNICEF example yet not one in the drowning example. Stuff like this has been debated for centuries, there's not really a concrete answer.

[lilsamuraijoe]

These two differ by the sight factor. Since you can actually see the other kid drowning, it has an emotional effect on you. When looking at a envelope, its gives off nothing and in return you feel nothing.



You can see African children starving anyday on national geographic. The circle of content i was talking about is growing. With the advancement of technology, we now have the capacity to affect people and have people affect us all around the world. Its just so happens that we, the privileged, now are able to decide who lives and who dies. And so, its becoming more important that we do develop global ethics.

[Left 4 Dead]

Go by what is given. Assume the people are stuck, somehow.

Hell, if I over-think this I can easily create the scenario thusly:

The Fatman is actually the evil roller-blading demolitions-expert boss from MGS2.

He intends to watch as the bomb he set off previously sets loose a rail car on the hostages he's tied up on the track. Obviously in an effort to kill them, maliciously, as all bad guys do.

Should the minority suffer for the benefit of the majority? Many people think so but where does one stop? Five people suffering from organ failure in different vital organs? Surely the right thing to do is to murder a perfectly healthy person and harvest their organs.

I believe it's slightly different.

Should you kill one person or five people?

You're not given a choice of life or death. Rather how many deaths.

[lilsamuraijoe]

I believe it's slightly different.

Should you kill one person or five people?

You're not given a choice of life or death. Rather how many deaths.



What I was going at in the first one was the fact that most people would sacrifice 1 person for the 5 by pulling the switch, but when posed with the same scenario in a different context-- pushing the fat guy-- the responses varied.

[Gforcemember45]

You can see African children starving anyday on national geographic. The circle of content i was talking about is growing. With the advancement of technology, we now have the capacity to affect people and have people affect us all around the world.

Looking at them from tv/envelope and such is one thing. Actually being able to see them in the flesh is a whole another ball park. Yes you're right we should help, but the way media does it just makes it into an annoyance.

[lilsamuraijoe]

Its more like we don't feel any obligation to. Those who do help, help because they want to.

[KingKon21]

I would simply Walk away from the scene, and Pretend nothing happend. WHOS WITH ME!
I thought the same exact thing when I first read it.

[lilsamuraijoe]

That also happens alot. Its called the bystander effect but is usually only occurs within larger numbers of bystanders.. The most famous occurence of it is the case of Kitty Genovese who was beaten near death in front of her apartment while people watched until eventually a neighbor scared the killer away. The killer returned and seeing that no one had aided her, decided to finish the job and stabbed Kitty to death. The reason for this happening is because when there are a large number of bystanders, everyone thinks someone else will intervene because they feel less responsible.

[KingKon21]

The reason for this happening is because when there are a large number of bystanders, everyone thinks someone else will intervene because they feel less responsible.
To tell you the truth, i hate that shit. Whenever im in public, and someone obviously needs help and is having a hard time with something, i hate how people just wait for someone to do something. Im usually the one to help because I'm not an idiot, like those waiting around.

[one of them]

I would NOT push the fat man because he had nothing to do with the fact that the trolly was going to kill 5 people, nor was it his choice to die. He is merely at the wrong place at the wrong time.
How is that for an answer?

[Seebach]

Natural Selection - 5 People die, due to their own stupidity

Murder - One person dies.

Plain and simple.

An individual has the right to choose their own life, and if 5 people decide to commit mass suicide, then it is their business.

No, the need of the many do not outweigh the need of the few, otherwise, we would be butchering and eating the minority on a daily basis.

The very reason people help one another is because people are interested in self-preservation. It isn't a bad thing, and it most certainly is NOT evil. The interest in others well being, is due to the fact of how society works. People need food, water, and shelter. Rather than everyone go out on their own and procure everything themselves, people specialize, and trade their excess goods for the the excess goods of others. People save the lives of others only in the face of injustice.

Therefore, if people are standing out in front of the train, determined to surrender their lives, then they are not worth saving.

The other person is just walking, knowing full well that the train will go through the other switch and he will be ok. He may or may not be aware of the 5 people, but at least he has taken precautions to secure his own life.

Is it fair to press that switch? To rob a man of his life at the cost of worthless people who do not want to live anyway?

Dumb people die everyday, what is 5 more?

The real philosophical question is to question the meaning of one's own existence. What is the reason to get up every morning? Why bother to endeavor? What is the nature of destruction? Creation?

[lilsamuraijoe]

There is no correct answer to this. It wasn't designed with a question in mind, but rather to observe how the brain works to solve moral dilemmas. But natural selection is one thing... watching letting 5 foolish but innocent people die is another thing. One thing Humans have that the turquoises and mockingbirds studied didn't is the ability to care for others and to know the value of life. You can argue that we are destructive beasts that would sooner slaughter thousands for oil or something like that, but you needn't look to hard to see that humans do indeed care for each other and not just for there own sake. I would just hope that the one person on the other set of tracks understands that his death is not in vain.

[one of them]

you know what else is cool? black holes. those things are cool.

[Jesus123]

Well lets say the five people are kids who are playing on the tracks and the other one person is a engineer doing some maintenece work. Now the question has been changed and now you have a different outlook on what decision to make. Decisions, decisions, decisions................

In the end there is no right answer.

[Seebach]

There is no correct answer to this.
The world is defined by objective reality, and there is ALWAYS a clear RIGHT and WRONG.

But natural selection is one thing... watching letting 5 foolish but innocent people die is another thing.

I watch it happen every day when people smoke, take drugs, or in their choice to not to endeavor or think.

It isn't sad that people die by their own mechanics, it is JUSTICE!

One thing Humans have that the turquoises and mockingbirds studied didn't is the ability to care for others and to know the value of life.

What is this abstract value? How do you exactly quantify the endeavors of a human being? People are not equal. They may have equal rights, but there there are clear distinctions between good people and bad people, and it is so because there is a set standard which allows life to continue. Those who create are good, and those who needlessly destroy are bad. This is why engineers, scientists, and business people are more important in every way, when compared to murderers, thieves, and pirates.

People care for each other because people have the tendency to return the favor, it is hard wired in to our brains to be social creatures and we have evolved as such, most animals do not unless they engage in social mechanics like apes, while non-social animals still survive because they have differing, yet still successful, living mechanics.

Ask yourself one question. "Would you care for a person who takes and takes and NEVER gives back?"

You can argue that we are destructive beasts that would sooner slaughter thousands for oil or something like that, but you needn't look to hard to see that humans do indeed care for each other and not just for there own sake.

That really depends on what you standardize as human. I consider an intelligent individual who independently seeks knowledge and higher truth to be human. Many people fall into this category. For those who do not, lets just ask a quick question. "Is a man any less of a man for treating a dog like a dog?"

Most people who fall into that category are murderers, rapists, and people of a generally destructive nature. They are treated as dogs, and rightfully so.

I would just hope that the one person on the other set of tracks understands that his death is not in vain.

Isn't it? Is it fair for a person to pay for the mistakes of others!?

[lilsamuraijoe]

Society creates disability. Naturally humans are equal. And if you love life then you know the value of life. The man on the other set of tracks did not pay for others mistakes, it was the other five who embraced his sacrifice.


Its clearly a hypothetical situation. If said fools actually were on the tracks you would just yell at them to get off. Thats why I said there were no right answers to it.


I'm really making this all up as I go, if you couldn't tell.

[Seebach]

Society creates disability. Naturally humans are equal. And if you love life then you know the value of life. The man on the other set of tracks did not pay for others mistakes, it was the other five who embraced his sacrifice.

Nature creates disability. Remember microbiology class and how cosmic rays break nucleotides out of place so they are transcribed incorrectly, thus creating mutations and genetic diversity? People are not equal, and to say so is foolish. If people are equal, then why is it that some people are good at one thing and bad at others? Why then, am I good at math, while bad at foreign languages, and others are inverted? Like I say, people are NOT equal, but they have equal RIGHTS. You cant swap your mother with a perfect stranger and pretend they are the same person!

I know the value of intelligent life and I deeply appreciate it for its ability to conquer nature, but those 5 people need to pay for their mistakes and die.

No bullshit about "embracing his sacrifice". Innocent people are not suppose to sacrifice themselves for others. History already learned that lesson last century.

For more information go to wikipedia and type in "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics".

Edit: They funny thing hypothetical situations is the fact that they too have correct answers as long as they are within a realm of accurate possibility. Stop the bullshit. Philosophy isnt for kid. People have died for what they believe in and you have make this whole affair a mockery of them.

[lilsamuraijoe]

Math, langauge, sociable skills? All products of society. Thus society creates disability. And to put your point in perspective, if those 5 fools did indeed need to pay for their mistakes, what about the other fool on the other set of tracks?


And by your definition of a fool, Socrates, who has never even heard of a railway, would most likely be ran over by one, because he is a fool.

[Xaos Falcon]

FUCK THAT SHIT. For number one, I'd throw a grenade at the tracks so the trolley crashes into a wall. For number two, I'd jump in front of the trolley and stop it with my bare hands in its tracks. FUCK YEAH CHUCK NORRIS

[lilsamuraijoe]

I really don't know anything apparently, but I know letting 5 people die is not something I would do anyways. Maybe if I were ever in the position of the lone fool, I would think differently, but all i know is that I would have the chance to save 5 people and that is what I would do. Just because they were dumb enough to play around the tracks, doesn't mean they deserve to die. We have all made worse mistakes.


This is good. A like being able to think like this, now I have stuff to talk about in Ap psych class and Philos/religion class tomorrow.

[Steve Cloud]

Oooh, I love these kind of things.

Kind of rekindles my interest in psychology.

[Seebach]

Math, langauge, sociable skills? All products of society. Thus society creates disability. And to put your point in perspective, if those 5 fools did indeed need to pay for their mistakes, what about the other fool on the other set of tracks?

Listen, if you are so upset about society, you can always leave it. Society does not disable people, individuals do, and usually they are criminals or politicians. If you are unhappy with your life, then kill yourself, or make it better. Go to the library, read a book, and learn a skill. It isn't hard.

Math, language, and sociable skills, are not the products of societies as they have qualities contributed from individual people. Which, of course is not to say that society cannot impact those respective fields by repressing it, or aiding in its growth. Math is the product of thousands of individuals who, in countless societies, have endeavored to understand the world around them. Language has evolved from countless individuals and their attempts to communicate, not from a society. If language were society based, then there would be a conference where people would agree how to communicate according to a set standard. Obviously, that is not the case as languages can change almost overnight with new words, meanings, and connotation. Sociable skills are passed on, not from society, but from cultures, and their respective backgrounds. There is a clear difference from a culture and a society. A society is a group of people with a given standard of rules, adopted via social contract. A culture evolves from individual expressions towards arts and a proven lifestyle (proven in the fact that they are successful). A culture contains specific styles of arts, and technology.

From this explanation, it is reasonable to assume that math, language, and sociable skills arise from common human interactions, and not originating from society, but rather culture and interactions between them.

In concerning the "Fool":
He has made no mistakes of such gravity to cost him his life. That is why he is not on the killing side of the tracks. What ever events, choices, and endeavors have let to those events, has put those people in their proper places. I was not talking about mistakes of any higher degree such as individual flaws, or flaws in their character. I was referencing the mistake that put 5 people on death row. Obviously.

Edit: I am incorrect in assuming a high difference between cultures and societies, as a society may more broadly contain people associated with cultural aspects. However, my definition of a society, being that of a set rules of social contract, still is applicable. I apologize for this error, though the flaw is in my usage of the word, not the logic.

"I really don't know anything apparently, but I know letting 5 people die is not something I would do anyways. Maybe if I were ever in the position of the lone fool, I would think differently, but all i know is that I would have the chance to save 5 people and that is what I would do. Just because they were dumb enough to play around the tracks, doesn't mean they deserve to die. We have all made worse mistakes.


This is good. A like being able to think like this, now I have stuff to talk about in Ap psych class and Philos/religion class tomorrow."

So it is ok to be a murderer as long as you are a hero? People may be happy that they are alive, but the praise of an idiot is worthless.

I just know that people need to pay for making bad mistakes. It doesn't matter if it is a child or a grandmother in her sixties. If they don't pay for their mistakes, who will?

[lurk4dead]

Pushing the man in front of the trolly to save lives is a question I've heard before but if someone says no to the 1:5 ratio what about 1:10? or 1:100? everyone has a point where they place a price on someone's life.

[Funky Biscuits]

1. Kill the fatty
2. I can swim and save the kid, but saving peoples lives is not the job of public spending

[Funky Biscuits]

Answer to all questions...


Shit happens


:)

[Funky Biscuits]

To tell you the truth, i hate that shit. Whenever im in public, and someone obviously needs help and is having a hard time with something, i hate how people just wait for someone to do something. Im usually the one to help because I'm not an idiot, like those waiting around.

Depends on the severity of the situation and the personal risk but, I would say I am good at handling a lot of situations where most people would freeze or be not be able to cope and I am a big lad and I stand out as a leadership model so I also feel it is my natural duty to protect, ask some of my friends I have their backs like who knows what!

[Left 4 Dead]

y Quote

Natural Selection - 5 People die, due to their own stupidity

Murder - One person dies.

Plain and simple.

An individual has the right to choose their own life, and if 5 people decide to commit mass suicide, then it is their business.

Wait a second... If I'm hit by a car while I'm crossing the street, is according to you, suicide?

Well shit...

The truth of the scenario, is to my understanding, provided by the available text and nothing more is as such. That the RUN AWAY trolley car is inevitably going to hit either one or five people based on the actions you take. The people considering the motives of the five people are extrapolating details not actually presented in the text provided, and are thereby skewering the meaning of the question/scenario.

All our skills are products of society. The skills themselves have been worked upon for generations by those preceding us.

The reason you know how to do Math, the reason you've studied languages (entirely unnecessary, the latter) is because of society, and what it expects from you.

My decisions, ultimately are of my own making. I would push the flip the switch and push the fat guy because logically 5 instead of 1 is a win. (Disregarding the nature of the 6 people, their motives, etc. Because it is not necessary for the scenario or decision.) I would save the kid and ruin the suit because it would be right, but I cannot waste myself away on donations because I'm not that well off myself. I would help the person being murdered in front of her apartment because I loosely value my own existence, and I figure helping out a person in danger, and dying, is better than wasting away in my own depression.

[gorgoth]

Allow me to come in to this discussion and impress upon you that Phineas Gage was from Vermont, so suck it. Also, morality is a great subject.

[Seebach]

Wait a second... If I'm hit by a car while I'm crossing the street, is according to you, suicide?

It depends of if you are trying to get out of the way or not, and if you are in a crosswalk. If you walk into the middle of the street and do not attempt to get out of the way, then your actions are suicidal. However, a car has considerably different variables, namely the path of the car, the driver, etc, so the situation is flawed to begin with.

A train has a set schedule and follows one path. If people are going to get run over and die, FOR SURE, then it must be mass suicide. A repair crew wouldn't be there during running hours, and it is unlikely that someone would think that getting hit by a train is beneficial towards their health. Even if people were pushed onto the track, there is still the possibility to survive by ducking under the train. Therefore, the people must want to die, or are too stupid to realize that they are in danger.

The reason you know how to do Math, the reason you've studied languages (entirely unnecessary, the latter) is because of society, and what it expects from you.

The reason I know math is because I was curious. Nobody demanded that I learn math. If you personify society and say what it expects, then you must also assume that society has an intelligent will, and that is not the case. If by society you mean people who recognize good qualities and helpful skills, then that is more accurate to say that you recognize them too, and you demand them of yourself.

Pushing a person down to their doom or pressing a "murder" button is murder. Even if it is to save people, it doesn't make you any less of a murderer. The 5 people on the track must pay for their mistakes, namely the mistake of being in front of the train to begin with. It doesn't matter if that murder saves the life of 10 or 1000000 people. If they are just going to sit there and die then they deserve to.

By your logic, to just sit there and watch a person die is wrong. Have you ever watch a person smoke? Drink? Or something equally destructive? You don't stop them from doing it then, so why now!? You may warn them, but nonetheless you respect their decision. Death by a train is quicker and more humane than 2 or 3 years of cancer, but I digress into the more hypothetical.

[Shrubberyjsc]

I know the correct answer!

It's 42!


^.^

[KingKon21]

^ you see all this? Thats why i would walk away and never talk about it again, or you know, just yell at them to get off.

[Left 4 Dead]

The fact that the trolley car was described specifically as a RUN AWAY trolley car would suggest that it isn't on the right schedule, may not even be on the right track.

The provided description of the scenario entirely suggests that he victims are unsuspecting of their imminent death, or even danger. You're introducing aspects not necessary or intended to make the final decision.

Likewise if I were to press the button, be presented the proper 'walk' symbol and am hit by the fastest of cars which I could not have seen coming... is still to you... Suicide? (Which is actually what I said earlier but you appear to have misinterpreted my intent when I said, "Crossing the street." because you somehow assumed I might of meant "Walked to the middle of the street and stood there")


The reason I know math is because I was curious. Nobody demanded that I learn math.

Well I don't know where you're from, or how you grew up... But that's not how it is for the majority of the people here. Many are thrust into an institute of education as soon as they come of age. We don't make this decision. Or at the very least it was impossible for as to truly understand the decision we're making. At the age 5, n6r0a33y.

[Seebach]

The provided description of the scenario entirely suggests that he victims are unsuspecting of their imminent death, or even danger. You're introducing aspects not necessary or intended to make the final decision.

How could people not be aware of the danger of standing on trolley tracks? People have the tendency to look both ways, and if they don't then it is a mistake that will cost them their life. True, it may not be suicide, but then it is still natural selection, with nature rewarding people by paying attention to the trolley that cannot possibly be on a blind turn because of that switch, unless you are on the trolley, and then looking for the breaks or shouting warnings would probably be a better idea.

No, being hit by a car while crossing the street while being in a crosswalk isn't suicide, I didn't say that now did I? If you are hit while still taking precautions with your life then that is murder, or at least manslaughter. A man hit you when he could have, and should have stopped, right? You are not to blame, he is, and will be punished to the fullest extent of the law for his mistake.

Well I don't know where you're from, or how you grew up... But that's not how it is for the majority of the people here. Many are thrust into an institute of education as soon as they come of age. We don't make this decision. Or at the very least it was impossible for as to truly understand the decision we're making. At the age 5, n6r0a33y.

Remember that old saying, " You can lead a horse to water, but you cant force it to drink"? Nobody is forcing you to learn, and some choose not to. Those who do are usually curious anyway. Those who are not curious usually reject the system and become criminals somewhere down the line. Just because the other option is is a terrible one, does not mean you are forced to do the good one. You are still making that choice.

Even for a child, it is fairly evident what good choices are. Do you see a child stab themselves with table knives? Or do you see a child be obedient for a chance to watch more television? Children are naturally curious to learn. They are not forced to learn, they are rewarded.

[Shocker05]

ok ok NVM seebach there is no point in arguing with you...since you simply do not understand what OP is trying to pass down...

Sorry sir but we cannot help you understand this simple situation psychology is just not for you..../the end

[Seebach]

If you guys want to believe in nonsense that is fine. I can't afford that luxury.

[Jesus123]

Im surprised a flame war hasn't broken out lol

Though this is one of the more impressive threads I've seen on these forums were members argue about there opinon without it breaking out.

[gorgoth]

Seebach, it's a question about human morality, not whether a bunch of retards can get hit by a trolley. Along that line, I think that there is no "correct" answer. Who's to decide whether the lives of 5 people are more important than 1? While logic says that saving 5 is better than 1, may not be the case. I think that the 5 is more important than the 1, but what if the 1 was someone like your leader? Then it might be safe to say than the choice would be very much different. The fact is is that while one human life may be worth no more than the other, people really aren't capable of seeing things like that in the moment when it is most important. I say I'd say 5 people, but if I had to, would I really? Ech, very un-eloquent. But you get the point.

[Left 4 Dead]

Seebach, it's a question about human morality, not whether a bunch of retards can get hit by a trolly.

Pretty much... But I guess this is as blunt as it can be put.

[gorgoth]

Yeah, but lets face it- nobody likes a literalist. So Seebach, is your answer you'd let the 5 people die? Because that's what it sounds like, but you haven't actually said.

EDIT: This is more moral based, not really philosophical.

[Left 4 Dead]

Yeah, but lets face it- nobody likes a literalist.

But being literal guarantees a less likely chance of being wrong. (Lol, guarantees a chance.) And if you are, well... You have the scapegoat of being literal.

I like being literal. The above statement has gotten me through so far. :D

[lilsamuraijoe]

EDIT: This is more moral based, not really philosophical.

Ethics or in other words the study of moral values is one of the main branches of Philosophy. But really the purpose of this question was to study the process people go through when deciding taxing choices such as this. The experimenter, I can't remember his name, observed the patients brain as the patient was asked this question. So it is more importantly a study of Neuropsychology than a philosophical question.

EDIT: The patients were observed in an MRI or CAT scan or something like that.

[gorgoth]

The world is defined by objective reality, and there is ALWAYS a clear RIGHT and WRONG.

Explain, please. I am interested in how such can be true. If it is true, than how can one discover the right and the wrong? Or is it that you belive in some higher being, and that people cannot truly know what is right versus what is wrong?

Quoting: lilsamuraijoe
I would just hope that the one person on the other set of tracks understands that his death is not in vain.


Isn't it? Is it fair for a person to pay for the mistakes of others!?

It is not fair, but is dying to save 5 people 'in vain'?

I really think that to understand each others opinions we have to really see where we are coming from... so Seebach, answer my questions or I'll know that you aren't really thinking this all through.

[gorgoth]

Double post, sorry. While I understand that it isn't the answer that is what this was created for, it was to see who answers what. But still, is it really philosophy at all? As you said, it's more psychological and/or moral based.

[Shocker05]

Double post, sorry. While I understand that it isn't the answer that is what this was created for, it was to see who answers what. But still, is it really philosophy at all? As you said, it's more psychological and/or moral based.


hehe ty for sorting that out now the flow of arguments are good :D

I just hate when people try to argue but seem to refuse...being in someone else shoes and push their idea being the "right one!"

philosophy is a interesting subject tho :D

[gorgoth]

I know the value of intelligent life and I deeply appreciate it for its ability to conquer nature, but those 5 people need to pay for their mistakes and die.

How convoluted are you?

No bullshit about "embracing his sacrifice". Innocent people are not suppose to sacrifice themselves for others. History already learned that lesson last century.

For more information go to wikipedia and type in "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics".

Edit: They funny thing hypothetical situations is the fact that they too have correct answers as long as they are within a realm of accurate possibility. Stop the bullshit. Philosophy isnt for kid. People have died for what they believe in and you have make this whole affair a mockery of them.

So, again, explain. I am curious about why you think that these people made a concious decision to be dumb and or suicidal. For the sake of the question, let's assume they are innocent intelligent people all crossing the trolley tracks when the car is let loose. That way we can push all the bullshit about natural selection aside and focus on the truth here- what you would do when 5 innocent peoples lives are at risk and you can save them at the cost of another equally innocent persons life.

[lilsamuraijoe]

Well whether a question is philosophical or not is debatable. What philosophy is is debatable. If you are interested in philosophy or stuff like that, you should pick up a copy of "Everything You Need to Know About Philosophy" by Steve Herman.

[gorgoth]

I'm sorry, I meant it from a completely dictionary-esq standpoint. I merely wanted to say that at this point we've moved on to ethics and morals, which may be covered in philosophies, but are not in themselves philosophies. Having them might qualify, but isn't it safe to say that the trolley question at this point has become a discussion about morality?

[Left 4 Dead]

We should totally make one like:

If you had a choice between sending a population to it's death by fleet of Star Destroyers or a Deathstar, which would you choose?

[gorgoth]

I have a new question. There are five babies on the tracks. You have the choice to save them by switching the tracks. If you do, a completely innocent man who has done nothing wrong will be hit and die. Do you save him or the children? Very interested to see who says what. Oh, and totally Death Star.

[Left 4 Dead]

Save the babies of course.

They're... babies. The word 'innocent' is lost on the man when the alternative is 5 children.

[gorgoth]

Just wait. I think you'd be surprised.

[Seebach]

Listen, I have said my opinion. I honestly don't care if you agree with me or not.

Those 5 people are on those tracks because their lives have led to being crushed by a trolley. Through all of their choices, for good or evil, for whatever reason they are there, they are there by their own choice. It has not been established that they are there for any other reason, other than to be trolley fodder. If I have made any error in my logic it is only the assumption that this is a reasoned argument, to be based in reality from a purely objective standpoint, as all good examples are based. What kind of people would be crushed by a trolley? The setting has not been established, nor the mechanics of the trolley. I assumed that it cannot be people of worth, because why would intelligent people be walking along a trolley track? Not very intelligent people. Even if they were caught unaware, there would still be many reasonable solutions as to escape their death being that the kill zone is only a meter or two wide. However, as stated, they will die if independent action is not taken, therefore, I assumed that they are either suicidal, or do not understand the danger that they are in, and thus not worth saving.

I will say this time and again, people are not equal, but they have equal rights. They have the right to live, but not at the sacrifice of others. This is why thieves, murders, and rapists are punished, because they require the sacrifice of others in order to allow their existence.

In pushing that switch, no longer does the trolley move to crush people people of a less aware nature, it moves towards that individual. That individual may be just as unaware as the rest of them, however, intelligent action has now put him into great peril where once he was not in the equation at all, effectively making the you the murderer.

To put bluntly, the 5 people will die due to their own mechanics. The trolley may be the "smoking gun", but was still their choice to be there at that time, even if they were unaware of the danger. The man is murdered because an intelligent will has robbed him of his life, forcing the mistakes, namely the mistakes of being at the wrong place at the wrong time on to him, when he wouldn't have died at all and perhaps understood the trolley system better than the others, which would explain why he would be on the tracks to begin with.

It was never a question of human life, because human endeavor varies greatly between all people, so a simple count of individuals is inadequate. The best way to value human life is to not mess with it at all, and allow it to go through its own mechanics by letting the smart people live and the less intelligent die (but only of their own misadventures).

I am really tired of this. Philosophy is suppose to be argued in order to come to a higher conclusion as to the world around us, not to ponder the abstractions of the mind as that is subjective and unique to every individual. To conclude that there is no conclusion is inadequate, and I consider my conclusion to this situation more than adequate.

If it helps you sleep at night, you can always shrug me off as a moron who doesn't know what he is talking about anyway.

Concerning your baby question, the babies die too, due to natural selection. They would die if someone just left them there anyway. Death by trolley is a bit more humane than a life of abandonment issues and living under the welfare system. On the bright side of that, the parents who left them there would not pass their genes on to the next generation so infant abandonment will gradually get less over the years.

[gorgoth]

assumed that it cannot be people of worth, because why would intelligent people be walking along a trolley track? Not very intelligent people.

You know that trolley tracks are all over citites, right? These people could be crossing the godamn street. But as I said Left 4 Dead, I knew you'd love
Concerning your baby question, the babies die too, due to natural selection. They would die if someone just left them there anyway. Death by trolley is a bit more humane than a life of abandonment issues and living under the welfare system. On the bright side of that, the parents who left them there would not pass their genes on to the next generation so infant abandonment will gradually get less over the years.

I won't lie, the fact that you'd rather have 5 babies die than 1 man is truly disgusting. I like how you assume that it is more ethical than living on welfare. Nowhere did I say what their families financial state was. I didn't even hint at it. One has to wonder how you get all of this information. Also, you read way to deeply into these situations. They were set up for people to answer, not for people to question them. For god's sake, in real life the 5 people'd die and you'd just be able to stand there and watch. The fact that you wouldn't save them even if you could makes you the one who should die.

[Seebach]

Like I said:

If it helps you sleep at night, you can always shrug me off as a moron who doesn't know what he is talking about anyway.

I have never expected help from society and I never have gotten it. My logic has worked so far, and until I am proven wrong, I have no reason to consider otherwise. If you want to be ruled by your emotions, or by the thoughts of others, be my guest. All I have done is outline my thought process, and you are the one to decide if it makes sense to you, not me.

I have considered the fact that the trolley is in an open area, namely a street, and that would only mean that 5 people are in a straight line within a rectangle only a few feet wide. The existence of a switch would mean that the trolley wouldn't derail on the 5 people, and would have a higher chance of derailing on the individual, being that it is more likely to be on a curved set of track.

I don't expect you to lie, what I am saying doesn't sound appealing to me as well, but neither does the fact that millions die every year from substance abuse. Natural selection is a cold hard mistress, and it rarely favors stupidity.

The fact that you wouldn't save them even if you could makes you the one who should die.

You forget, I am not the one on the track, now am I.

I refuse to live my life for the sake of others. If that disgusts you so much then I recommend looking in the mirror, because chances are, you are the same as me.

[Funky Biscuits]

http://www.roflcat.com"] ("http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/270911970_db35fdd4ca.jpg[/img]

[Gforcemember45]

The fact that you wouldn't save them even if you could makes you the one who should die.

Just because you can save some doesn't mean you should. Its their fault for being on the tracks, so in turn, its their fault for dying a horrific death.

I normaly try to help most of those around me, i volunteer to help those who dont have much, i paint houses, build wheel chair ramps and the such, but those people didn't get to where they were by choice. Those who got there by substance abuse and continue to do so will not recive my help.

[gorgoth]

I refuse to live my life for the sake of others. If that disgusts you so much then I recommend looking in the mirror, because chances are, you are the same as me.


While you are right to say that no one is completely altruistic, myself included, saving 5 babies versus 1 man isn't a stunning display of living ones life for others. I think that you don't mean to say that you'd chose to let the babies die, rather you would not intervene. Can you confirm that, because it'd make much more sense if that's what you mean.

[Jesus123]

Its plain and simple; If you see a man drowning you would save him. If a kid was about to get ran over you would save him. But being asked to pick who lives and who dies is wrong on a degree to were you don't have to make the decision.

[Seebach]

I normaly try to help most of those around me, i volunteer to help those who dont have much, i paint houses, build wheel chair ramps and the such, but those people didn't get to where they were by choice. Those who got there by substance abuse and continue to do so will not recive my help.


I am the same way, helping others benefits everyone, as long as they show initiative to improve the world around them. I build things because I improve my skills, and usually they show gratitude in the form of friendship and material benefits. If they do not show gratitude then I refuse to help them as it is a waste of time. In helping others, I benefit, therefore, I do so for my own livelihood.

If people are going to die, and not get out of they way, then they are suicidal. The situation defines their actions as such. I have been going over that many many times.

I think that you don't mean to say that you'd chose to let the babies die, rather you would not intervene.

Correct. Being that I did not create the situation, I am not responsible for the lives of those who are about to die. This is similar to people who choose to slowly kill themselves via substance abuse. I may not like what they are doing, but I am forced to accept their decisions as such.

On a side note, I consider children an investment towards the future, and until they are intelligent enough, or old enough to make their own decisions, their life is in the hands of the parents. If their parents put them there, or if by some outrageous fluke they are put in harms way, the fault lies in the the parents, not the children, as they cannot make the proper decision. If the children die, then the parents are the ones who realize their mistake and pay for it. You may say that "the children shouldn't be made to pay for the parents mistakes", and that is true, but only when they are older and can make independent decisions, for only then do they possess what people call a "soul" and the ability to create.

EDIT:
"Its plain and simple; If you see a man drowning you would save him. If a kid was about to get ran over you would save him. But being asked to pick who lives and who dies is wrong on a degree to were you don't have to make the decision." (Quoting Jesus123)

I agree.

[lilsamuraijoe]

Ok.. lets say you are right Seebach... you still don't see the point in this study.

[Gforcemember45]

Ok.. lets say you are right Seebach... you still don't see the point in this study.

The point is its a really stupid study since there will never be a concrete answer, so why even try to find anything?

[Seebach]

Ok.. lets say you are right Seebach... you still don't see the point in this study.

Then what is the point of this "study"?

There is no correct answer to this. It wasn't designed with a question in mind, but rather to observe how the brain works to solve moral dilemmas.

I have outlined the vast majority of my logic, and I have showed how my brain works in solving moral dilemmas. Thus I have come to a logical conclusion to base my actions upon. You have my data, and you have my answer to an unanswerable question, a concrete solution, and one that is correct according to logical variables from a reasoned argument.

To not press the switch and allow a trolley to kill 5 people, and avoid becoming a murderer.

If there is a flaw in my argument, or in any of my logic, please point it out. That way I can revise the contradiction. Enlighten me.

Was the point of the study to conclude that there is no conclusion? Or was the point to agree with your own conclusion, and verify it? Or was the point to research the actions of individuals in response to "moral dilemmas"? Or was it to prove that people have different opinions concerning ethics or morality?

[lilsamuraijoe]

No, actually what was being studied was the blood flow in the participants brains when they were asked the two questions. Actually about 5 out of 5 people said yes to pulling the switch quickly as they were told to make a split second decision. But when those same people were asked the same question... pushing the fat man off the bridge to stop the trolley in its tracks, they hesitated. It was found that when people struggled with these problems in an MRI type scanner is that regions of the brain thought to be involved in emotion lit up when people thought about pushing the guy off the bridge. It took them longer to make that decision than the less personal one of throwing the switch. More info can be found here.. http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/

You do sound very intelligent and your arguments make sense, but I simply don't think the same way you do.

[lilsamuraijoe]

Also the Shallow Pond and the Envelope is the work of Peter Singer, a renowned philosopher.


http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/199704--.htm

[Nemesis_vs_Leon]

switches are a bit detached. You don't care what happens to things when you're just told about them and use a switch, but when AN ACTUAL EFFING PERSON has to be pushed and you can feel them and know it's another person, you realize pushing them is JUST WRONG.

simple really.


btw, time it right and the trolley will be DERAILED BETWEEN THE TWO CHOICES, MISSING EVERYONE! Good timing is awesome.

now for the fat guy one... you could push him then jump in yourself. Your combined body mass will render both of you possibly severely injured, but you will survive having worked together.

I love the seemingly nonexistant choice C ;)

[lilsamuraijoe]

Well you see.. the two scenarios are strikingly similar... and most people do agree it is ok to sacrifice one person to save five lives in the first case, but not in the second case.

[EClaris]

well apply it to a second scenario,


your locked in a room with another person you never met and will never get out unless one of you is dead, you have a gun. What will you do?


You're locked in a room with your best friend and you will never get out until one of you is dead, you have a sledgehammer. What will you do.

This are also similar, but the difference between them (and your scenario) is how personal it is. Flicking a switch is different than physically shoving that person into the tracks. Saving a drowning child is different than mailing a check

[Shocker05]

your locked in a room with another person you never met and will never get out unless one of you is dead, you have a gun. What will you do?


Will take sometime but I will end up killing him...

You're locked in a room with your best friend and you will never get out until one of you is dead, you have a sledgehammer. What will you do.

I'd kill him....but to sum it up...when I kill my friend I will hunt down that bastard who locked me in that room and Smash his face in with my Sledgehammer.

Tip: Do not look into the scenario too much/ Do not add or remove any information from the scenario/ Give it a straight Yes, I will or no, I will not and this is why.... that is all.

We can discuss the answers later on.

[gorgoth]

If people are going to die, and not get out of they way, then they are suicidal. The situation defines their actions as such. I have been going over that many many times.

So if I get hit by a car I am suicidal? The point is they don't know. They aren't suicidal, they aren't homicidal, they aren't anything. And I'm glad that you confirmed that for me, although you are still a very deranged person. While hitting the switch may be considered murder, just because letting those 5 die isn't "murder" doesn't make it any righter. The fact is is that whatever society may deem as murder, you can save 5 people and kill one, or you can kill one and save five. Without regard to who they are in any way, the logical decision would be to save 5. There's no way around that fact and that is where I am coming from. The point of this is not to over analyze and question who the people are or why they are on the tracks, because first off, were you in this situation you would not know nor would you be able to find out. It'd a split second chance- save them or save the other guy. Nothing more, nothing less. So what's your answer.

[lilsamuraijoe]

Flicking a switch is different than physically shoving that person into the tracks. Saving a drowning child is different than mailing a check
You see that is exactly the point. Why is it that humans think this way? You see, either flicking the switch or shoving the person results in the sacrifice of one live for five -- you are still killing a person in either case -- and in the pond and envelope situation, if you had the chance to save one person, surely you would do it but if you had the chance to save 30 children just as easily but most people won't and even more people think that is OK. Although I think this is kind of flawed, because if everyone knew that there donation was important and that it wasn't being misused by the organization that asked for it, I'm sure more people would send the letter. The Peter Singer article I posted above gives a good explanation for the shallow pond and envelope scenario.

[EClaris]

yeah, I've heard that, we used for a dry spell in my philosophy club.

but I think it has psychological weight, because humans are instinctively social and selfish creatures.

If you saved said child, you would surely be reward, not necessesarily monetarily but you would be praised recognized.

Sending in an envelope gives you no public recognition, maybe a tote bag with the agency's logo.

Also situation urgency has a lot to do with it

[Seebach]

The point is they don't know. They aren't suicidal, they aren't homicidal, they aren't anything. And I'm glad that you confirmed that for me, although you are still a very deranged person. While hitting the switch may be considered murder, just because letting those 5 die isn't "murder" doesn't make it any righter.

I did not create the situation, therefore the 5 people dying is not my responsibility. There are tons of ways to know that a trolley is coming. The vibration of the rails, the noise generated by the trolley, and the people that may be shouting warnings. If they are unaware of their fate, that means they do not understand that they are in danger. Even if the trolley is fast and sudden, due to the placement of the switch, it has to be on a straight track so it cannot derail, thus the kill zone is only a few meters thick. If they have their foot stuck in a rail, or something of a more accidental nature, then due to their own mistake, their life will be taken.

By your logic, to sit around and watch a person die, even if it is accidental, or they are unaware of the danger they are in, is, by your definition, as bad as murder.

You must be a terrible person as well then!
There must be tons on people smoking and drinking within a kilometer of you right now! Why are you not stopping them? They dont know about the killing effects of cigarette smoke. How could they? They dont have a degree in microbiology, and they believe doctors at face value. Or for a more distinct argument, eating cheeseburgers from pre-processed food vendors can yield massive damage to a person's circulatory system that can lead to heart attacks, diabetes, cancer, and hundreds of other terrible health problems. People are aware of the effects of the preservatives, they are all over the media outlets. You are aware of this, yet you do nothing!

Or do you now admit that they must pay for their mistakes even if it yields unforeseen consequences.

Concerning the lives of others, you say that it is always better to save the lives of the greater number. Would you then cannibalize the minority to save a few? People would die anyway due to starvation so why not save a few? You have no qualms about murdering for a reason, you have stated as much.

The fact is is that whatever society may deem as murder, you can save 5 people and kill one, or you can kill one and save five.

Just remember to slaughter them quick before their fat and muscle disappears.

Neglect is criminal, only if it is your responsibility in the first place, and rightfully so! If you were the tram operator, or the switch mechanic, then it would be a far different story.

EDIT: My usage of the word "Tram" is taken out of proper context. A tram is a cart used for carrying loads out of mines. I should have stuck with trolley. I apologize.

[Gforcemember45]

So far i've agreed with everything seebach has said, its not your fault/ responsobility if the five people get killed. You just happened to be there, I my self would just walk away and hope they or those around them learn a lesson.

Dont stand on fucking trolley tracks like an idiot.

[DangerWillRobinson]

I'm not going to jail for murder because I threw a fat fuck on the train tracks. Those 5 people shouldn't have been on the fucking trolly in the first place. Just because you kill someone to save those 5 people, doesn't mean the judge, the jury, and the family of the fat guy will forgive you.

[November4th]

Errr.

To Seebach, Gforce and Danger. And to all whom it may concern.

You've all done a great job over-analyzing the scenario.

But as Left 4 Dead says, nothing in the provided text discerns that they're, A) Retards, B) Morons, C) Suicidal or D) A combination of the above.

Why add these variables?

It is a moral question.

There's no need for detailing the character of these persons. In fact, that dilutes your answer. And ultimately, the value of the question asked.


This question cannot have proper input if you consider any other variable or reasoning's other than whats provided in the text. Even though the rest of us can fully assume the details (The proper details like joe, Left 4 Dead.). Which is that they're normal human beings. You don't know them, they don't know you, so you can NOT properly judge their character. And that the trolley is unforeseen save you. There are those who are skewering the question.

For example:

Scenario 1:

Kill the 5 people because the 5 people are Hitler, Mussolini and Franco who have been brought to the same timeline by Frank from Donnie Darko.

Scenario 2: Don't push the fat guy because at the angle and speed, plus momentum of the trolley, also considering it's sound waves which should reach the people on the tracks, given the distance of a 50 meters from the start to them, and the nature of the surroundings, no other cars to deafen the noise etc. and the wind speed heading east, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET OUT OF THE WAY.

The ONLY acceptable variable is society. The repercussions of taking these actions. But obviously this was either left out by the original poster unintentionally, or not in the question to begin with. (So yes, I see your point Seebach. At least with your first posts.)

(I've in fact taken a government exam with this question in it. It highlights a few questions afterward whether or not my decisions would change if there were repercussions.)

Now there are 2 things that deeply disturb me here:

One, the guy saying it's suicide to get hit by a freak anything. Stupid.

Two, the guy using smoking and substance abuse as a point. Also stupid. Smoking and substance abuse are choices. Getting hit by a freak anything is not.

By that logic, as someone has already pointed out, me crossing the street and getting hit by a bus is my fault. Even though I had stayed on the cross walk, etc.

But not only that, it's even more my fault because I had not the reflexes nor the agility to move out of the way.

Such as it is: The scenario illustrates perfectly, (To half of us now) that the trolley was run-away and so on. WHY EVEN CONSIDER THIS.

You think your logic makes sense?

You were asked whether or not you'd kill one person to save five people and you answered with, "The killzone of a trolley car is too small, the people within it must be suicidal retards. Natural selection... such and so on."

It's a moral question.

[DangerWillRobinson]

You know, you really did not have to pull a tl;dr for that, I know exactly what your goal was with the questions, and I caan definitely discern morales from real-life situations with variables and different possibilities. Morally, I'd fucking push the guy, but logically, in real life, I wouldn't. I'm not that fucking close-minded.

I just said that for the sake of saying what I'd do in real life. I don't feel like having one of these spiritual over-intensive conversations on the internet.

[November4th]

The reason it's so frustrating to see is this nonsense wouldn't exist if the question was laid out simply:

5 people are in harms way (unpredictable by any means and inevitable) and will die, unless you redirect the harm onto another person. But that person will also die. Do you kill that one person for the lives of the 5?

But instead I get the blue prints for all the trolley's that map East Victoria. A lesson on Natural Selection and symptoms of retardation. Let alone the proper distance-vibration measurements for the sound a trolley on a rail.

Then again, someone's going to come in here, serious or not and say... Something like:

"If those people can't move out of harms way they're stupid."

*Note can't, not don't.

[Left 4 Dead]

Although you're right, and I agree with you completely..

I love it when Lurkers come on the forum all of the sudden and just...

Explode on threads.

'ASPLODE!

[DangerWillRobinson]

Then again, someone's going to come in here, serious or not and say... Something like:

"If those people can't move out of harms way they're stupid."



but they are.

[Left 4 Dead]

No, they're not.

Dammit. He said:

*Note can't, not don't.

*If it were the norm to always be able to avoid harm, then harm would not exist.

That's like calling someone an idiot because they can't breathe in space/underwater/in a volcano.

Sure it's fucking funny, except for the last option, because they'd probably be dead instantly, but seriously... No.

[DangerWillRobinson]

That's like calling someone an idiot because they can't breathe in space/underwater/in a volcano.



but they are.


Okay I'm done trolling, continue.

[Seebach]

but they are.

Okay I'm done trolling, continue.

Thank you for your input DangerWillRobinson.

That's like calling someone an idiot because they can't breathe in space/underwater/in a volcano.

If they put themselves in that situation then they intend to either kill themselves, or do not understand the situation, and have unknowingly put themselves in danger. In previous posts, I have argued that they may not be aware, but they surely have not taken steps to secure their life. If the trolley is near a switch, then it is on a straight path, not on a blind turn. If the crosswalk is perpendicular to the rails, as civil planning normally dictates, then the kill zone is only a few meters wide, and the people would have plenty of warning, even if they were sitting on the track, due to the vibration of the rails, people that may be shouting warnings, etc. Thus, the only people who would remain on the tracks would be people who cannot move, and thus have to had suffered an injustice that put them there (which is not what I am arguing, as if it is an injustice, how could you have known the 5 will die unless you are in on the plot, and are a murder anyway?), or are too foolish to understand the danger they are in, and not evade the trolley.

They may not be idiots for being in that environment, but surely you must admit that they are idiots for trying to breathe in space/underwater/in a volcano.

As stated, my argument assumes that they are not suffering an injustice that put them in harms way, say if they were pushed or tied down by a comical villain. If they were, then the situation would change greatly, but that does not make their well being any more your concern unless you are the one who pushed them, or tied them down.

lilsamuraijoe, I am sorry, you were right concerning my attitude towards this study. I didn't understand, but I do now. Thank you.

[Gforcemember45]

frankly i found this to be an interesting topic, horrible study though, because it forces us to delve a little deeeper into our selves. If any one else has a few good situations that we can debate on, please bring them forward.

[DangerWillRobinson]

Okay, here's one.


You commit an accidental murder, lets say you drunkenly stabbed a man at a party. Somehow the investigators get it totally wrong and arrest a completely different person, who is a stranger to you. He is convicted and will be sentenced to life in prison. Would you come forward and say you did it, or let that person die in your place?

[Funky Biscuits]

but I think it has psychological weight, because humans are instinctively social and selfish creatures.

If you saved said child, you would surely be reward, not necessesarily monetarily but you would be praised recognized.

True but a lot of people would rise above their selfish nature to rescue a child who is in danger, and for me helping others can be a reward in itself!
Why don't we help 3rd worlders?
Well we don't know them, they do little for us. Plus you have to think of the intrinsic value of people, for instance I (Generally) would put anyone from MY nation before others, America comes second :)

[Steve Cloud]

You commit an accidental crime, lets say you drunkenly stabbed a man at a party. Somehow the investigators get it totally wrong and arrest a completely different person, who is a stranger to you. He is convicted and will be sentenced to life in prison. Would you come forward and say you did it, or let that person die in your place?

Why would an accidental crime have a life-sentence?

Also, tough question. Everything tells me to say I would, since its hypothetical but I truely don't think I would.

[DangerWillRobinson]

Why would an accidental crime have a life-sentence?



For a killing to be considered murder, there normally needs to be an element of intent. For this argument to be successful the killer generally needs to demonstrate that they took precautions not to kill and that the death could not have been anticipated or was unavoidable, whatever action they took. As a general rule, manslaughter constitutes reckless killing, while criminally negligent homicide is a grossly negligent killing.

Pulled from the wiki, so correct me if I'm wrong.

[Steve Cloud]

Okay, okay.

Still, a life sentence for one murder?


Well, I guess we can just assume your lawyer was paid in food and I can stop asking questions.

[Shocker05]

Lets just assume that you left no evidence and the police doesn't arrest you >.>

This is a philosophical Question....so dont add anything other than Yes I will and no I wont and this is why.

Seriously if you guys had a class on this you would Fail.... F --

[Grieverlionhart]

Ignore the switch they shouldnt be standing there and push the fat guy his oxygen intake is equivalant to ten people.

[gorgoth]

I figured it out. The real murderer is the driver. It's not a runaway, he's trying to kill them.

[Seebach]

The real murderer is the driver.

I beg to differ! (http://correctopinion.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/clue-game.jpg)

It was Colonel Mustard, in the Observatory, WITH THE REVOLVER!

But honestly, if he does kill them, unless he put them there, it is an accident, and for all his powers of control, he is no more responsible for them than you are.

However, because the trolley is runaway, and therefore lacking in intelligent control, it is more likely that the trolley operator has had a heart attack, or something of a more dire nature.

You commit an accidental murder, lets say you drunkenly stabbed a man at a party. Somehow the investigators get it totally wrong and arrest a completely different person, who is a stranger to you. He is convicted and will be sentenced to life in prison. Would you come forward and say you did it, or let that person die in your place?

It is wrong to force another to pay for one's own mistakes, regardless of their character, disposition, or otherwise. I would come forward.

[Gforcemember45]

You commit an accidental murder, lets say you drunkenly stabbed a man at a party. Somehow the investigators get it totally wrong and arrest a completely different person, who is a stranger to you. He is convicted and will be sentenced to life in prison. Would you come forward and say you did it, or let that person die in your place?

The blood is on your hands in that one, the only way to truly clear your mind is to come forward, or you'll be driven insane by the thoughts that plague you later in life. and if you overcome that, then there's something wrong with you.

[redjacketman14]

As for the first one Im not sure. For the second the end doesn't justify the means. If one wants to sacrifice their life to save others thats fine. But you cannot sacrifice ANOTHER PERSON'S life to save others.

plus: cant you shout at the people to move, and are they all so stupid that they don't realize its coming? or are they all blind and deaf?

[Thor-axe]

IT HAS BEEN REVIVED!

[Bangsplatter]

I would say that fantastic moral dilemmas offer no practical guidance in how to live one's life. The purpose of morality (in philosophy) is to guide one in how to live their life, their every day real life, not far-fetched created scenarios (typically of the emergency nature) which no one is ever likely to encounter. The additional problem with most (if not all) hypothetical scenarios is that they fail to provide a full enough context to make a properly informed decision.

However, for the sheer fun of it, I'll answer both questions.

1) I will do nothing. I am not responsible for the train careening into anyone, whoever is engineering the train is. Should I alter the course of the train I DO then become responsible for killing the one guy. Based on the information given, there is no quantifiable means to determine whether the value of the five lives is greater or lesser than the one life. The fact that it is five lives versus one life is not enough information by itself.

2) I will not jump off the bridge or push the fat guy. Sacrificing my life is just plain stupid. Morality should teach me how to live, not how to kill myself. However, the hypothetical again lacks enough information to quantify the fat guy's life versus those other five lives.

Moreover, I have no indication based on the scenario that ANY of these people are of any particular value to me.

Lastly, the interesting thing to me is that such a study would not be interesting or informative to me. The correct course of action is not determined by how many people choose which course of action (fallacy of consensus). I cannot live by sticking my finger in the air to see which way the wind of public opinion flows.

[Bangsplatter]

You commit an accidental murder

Ironically, you seem to almost notice in a later post that this is essentially (semantically) impossible. Murder, legally, is the INTENTIONAL killing of another human being with malice aforethought. It would be impossible to accidentally intentionally kill someone after hatefully planning it in the first place.

[Bangsplatter]

But you cannot sacrifice ANOTHER PERSON'S life to save others.

I certainly could in the right context. I may have to face legal ramifications, but my conscience would likely be clear. If such a choice existed between the life of a complete stranger and the life of my son, my son will continue breathing to whatever extent I can impact that. However, a more extensive context is necessary for that to be particularly true in any given situation.

Hypotheticals are almost always posed in a vacuum. Life is not.

[Bangsplatter]

Seriously if you guys had a class on this you would Fail.... F --

Good. I'd rather pass life than that class. :)

[Foley]

Flip the switch, push the fat guy. Do I win?

[Patrick R Ludvigen]

the people standing on the train tracks are obviously in some sort of organized suicide, i wouldn't get involved

[Halfeatendonkey]

the people standing on the train tracks are obviously in some sort of organized suicide, i wouldn't get involved

Now thats, Win.

[Nemesis_vs_Leon]

This thread reminds me of Saw. This is basically what Saw is about; the big life questions that involve instantaneous decision making and possible death. Of course, in Saw if you make a morally bad decision, the trap usually kills you.


Another alternative: take pictures of the whole scene and sell them to newspapers reporting on it. Also, take video if possible.

Now all we need is a another Saw-ish situation involving the thread itself or the internet... or maybe online games...

I know! would you rather play games for free your whole life or make them your whole life? Note that you can only do ONE and that if you try to do the other one you will instantly die for no apparent reason. CHOOSE!

[Gforcemember45]

i would play for free, theres more to life then games, although they're a great escape from everything except damn ten year olds.

[Bangsplatter]

Of course, in Saw if you make a morally bad decision, the trap usually kills you.

I would have said that if you made a decision that Jigsaw didn't like the trap usually killed you. I didn't consider Jigsaw to be the paragon of virtue and his morality promoted the death of self over others.